Hey,
I am currently doing a research essay and I'm doing it on why the Tragically Hip are super famous and well known in Canada but no where else in the world. If you ask any americans who the Tragically Hip are, they won't have an answer for you. Does anyone have any good books or journals on this kind of subject? Or just want to discuss this with me?
I'm always up for a good debate with fellow Hip fans.
One thought/suggestion for potential research is to check youtube or other sources for old interviews with the band. They seem to have been asked about this a million times, like virtually every interview they gave, at least in the states. :nooooo
The ultimate answer is surely nuanced and involving many factors, but I always thought it came down to never getting enough of a foothold on American radio more than anything else. So part of it I think lies with the DJs or station programmers or industry big shots who decided what they would play. Whereas Canadians of a certain age frequently talk about the tunes being pervasive in the culture and entering their ears whether voluntary or not growing up (at every hockey rink, etc), here in the states they were rarely ever heard, so we had to first discover them, and then make the effort to seek them out. Meanwhile we were inundated with other options. I remember when Phantom Power came out and Poets was a single, I was super-excited to hear it on the radio - when I was travelling near some border towns. Hearing them on the radio at all was a big deal to me. I can also remember having to search for and call around to music stores to find a copy of several of their cds on the days they were released - to my great annoyance and indignation at the time. And if they did have it, it was usually only a couple copies that the dude had to rummage around the store to find. So in the end, the band had to earn its own fans one at a time through their incredible dedication to touring and putting on the most amazing shows. Thankfully someone told me there was a band I had to see...and for that I am incredibly grateful, along with (now) heartbroken.
Many of the articles last summer also talked about the attempts to break the US. I personally have two views.
It's a bit of a fallacy that they never broke into the US. In border cities and states, they were as popular as in Canada. They could consistently tour across the US throughout their career, and for the most part play halls and theaters as a headliner -- mid-sized venues of a few thousand capacity. By most measures in the music business, that would be considered success. Same applies in Europe, though they played there less.
Compared to their contemporaries, The Hip achieved far more success globally. The parallel that comes to mind is Blue Rodeo, who have had a very successful career in Canada but play primarily bars outside of the country. Today, there are plenty of similarities. July Talk sold out three nights at Massey Hall, play bars one hour south of the border. Matt Good has a solid career touring Canada, and said he simply can't afford to tour the US.
The second thing, it's not that unusual -- regionalism exists in most music. When I'm in the UK, I always come across a number of bands playing 2000 plus capacity venues who are entirely unknown in North America. Some eventually cross over to North America, but most don't. The US has regional pockets as well -- Austin has a vibrant music scene, with only a handful of bands achieving some further reaching level of success (for example Spoon).
Canada possibly has a bit less of that "local regionalism", because it's a harder country to tour. You can make a living playing the US eastern seaboard, due to proximity of venues. You can't as easily in Canada, you have to be able to go coast to coast. Record label support also plays a large part. My impression is The Hip had a few "champions" that supported their career in the US -- they were able to build up a decent fan base to support touring, landed some good opener slots.
Canada has produced many excellent bands that could never seem to get into the US. Could part of it be their taste in music?
Just off the top of my head ... The Trews, The Tea Party, Big Wreck, I Mother Earth, Finger Eleven, Sloan, Big Sugar, The Odds, Blue Rodeo, Matthew Good Band and of course the Hip
Just pin edgoffin's answer and lock this thread. Definitive!
edgoffin Wrote:Many of the articles last summer also talked about the attempts to break the US. I personally have two views.
It's a bit of a fallacy that they never broke into the US. In border cities and states, they were as popular as in Canada. They could consistently tour across the US throughout their career, and for the most part play halls and theaters as a headliner -- mid-sized venues of a few thousand capacity. By most measures in the music business, that would be considered success. Same applies in Europe, though they played there less.
Compared to their contemporaries, The Hip achieved far more success globally. The parallel that comes to mind is Blue Rodeo, who have had a very successful career in Canada but play primarily bars outside of the country. Today, there are plenty of similarities. July Talk sold out three nights at Massey Hall, play bars one hour south of the border. Matt Good has a solid career touring Canada, and said he simply can't afford to tour the US.
The second thing, it's not that unusual -- regionalism exists in most music. When I'm in the UK, I always come across a number of bands playing 2000 plus capacity venues who are entirely unknown in North America. Some eventually cross over to North America, but most don't. The US has regional pockets as well -- Austin has a vibrant music scene, with only a handful of bands achieving some further reaching level of success (for example Spoon).
Canada possibly has a bit less of that "local regionalism", because it's a harder country to tour. You can make a living playing the US eastern seaboard, due to proximity of venues. You can't as easily in Canada, you have to be able to go coast to coast. Record label support also plays a large part. My impression is The Hip had a few "champions" that supported their career in the US -- they were able to build up a decent fan base to support touring, landed some good opener slots.
What he said. :thumb:
Yup...I asked Rob his opinion on this last fall in an interview, because I thought it was b/s.. He said that they did many tours across the USA for venues with a few thousand capacity and had no problem selling them out. 90% of bands in America will never be able to do that. So how is that not successful in the USA?
arewhyehen Wrote:Yup...I asked Rob his opinion on this last fall in an interview, because I thought it was b/s.. He said that they did many tours across the USA for venues with a few thousand capacity and had no problem selling them out. 90% of bands in America will never be able to do that. So how is that not successful in the USA?
They definitely had pockets of fans all over the U.S., and not just Canadian expats. I met a local guy in San Francisco once who had seen the Hip more times than I had. He had been following their career since the mid-90s, and had discovered them when he heard Nautical Disaster played on a college radio station. He also bragged about how many of his friends he had turned on to the band. Their success in the U.S. was more of the word of mouth variety, and by all accounts they made a good living touring there. I saw quite a few shows down there over the years in various places (Boston, Erie, San Francisco, Spokane, Seattle), and a lot of those were in mid-size 1000-seat theaters or large capacity clubs. Lots of Canadians at those shows for sure, but plenty of Americans mixed in there as well.
Born and raised in the Seattle area and someone who has been a huge Hip fan since 1989, I will take a stab at this.
1) "Timing is everything." I was lucky enough to hear NOIS on the local radio station in 1989. I immediately went to Tower Records and bought the cassette. Now this was the about the time that the hair spray bands were dying out and by 1991, the beginning of the "Seattle Sound" began to take the airwaves and MTV by storm. The Hip were lost in the Nirvana, PJ, Soundgarden, etc. A band almost had to come from Seattle to get airtime back then. Since the Hip's sound was not garage band, they were not played. I can remember calling my local radio station begging them to play anything from Road Apples....nothing...they got a ton of airtime with NOIS...but nothing after that. I'm afraid had I not heard them on the radio in 1989, I may have never learned of this band.
2) "Music was above that of an American listener". By the time the Seattle Sound died by idiots that thought the cool thing to do was to break up or become addicted to heroin, the Hip had cultivated their Canadian heritage, their sound, and their advanced songwriting. It was above the average American's ability to understand, process, and appreciate. Gord was just to smart for the average American fan. Simply put, their music was above their intelligence. And without airplay or exposure, even potential fans would never get to hear it.
3) Release Dates. I can remember not being able to buy DFN in the record stores and having to buy it at a Hip show in Seattle in 1994. It didn't release for months following the Canadian Release.
WHY did this happen?
I have a couple of points I would add to the comments others have made already:
1) Define popular - what designates a band as popular in the US, is it a number one single (once or many times)?, is it selling out arenas? Winning awards? Sales? This ties into Rob's quote on the subject:
arewhyehen Wrote:Yup...I asked Rob his opinion on this last fall in an interview, because I thought it was b/s.. He said that they did many tours across the USA for venues with a few thousand capacity and had no problem selling them out. 90% of bands in America will never be able to do that. So how is that not successful in the USA?
2) I think lyrically the following is true for many Canadian listeners as well but there was enough cultural context and content that the flag waving was easy to get behind. The band as a cultural identity was distinctively
ours as Canadians - something we could have pride and ownership in the "local boys do good sort of way." I would make the comparison to any small-town community that has produced one or more hockey players that have played in the NHL you go to the local arena and their Jersey is there. Musically the band could match anything considered popular being pushed from the US or Europe. The combination pushed the Hip above any of their Canadian peers during the late 80s through the 90s when I would suggest they cemented their place in Canadian Music history.
Dave's Delta Wrote:"Music was above that of an American listener". By the time the Seattle Sound died by idiots that thought the cool thing to do was to break up or become addicted to heroin, the Hip had cultivated their Canadian heritage, their sound, and their advanced songwriting. It was above the average American's ability to understand, process, and appreciate. Gord was just to smart for the average American fan. Simply put, their music was above their intelligence. And without airplay or exposure, even potential fans would never get to hear it.
3. The other item from a Canadian perspective is CanCon. the Hip emerged during what has been called the CanCon Renaisance and heavily benefitted from this with constant exposure in Canada at the height of a move to alternative rock radio and much music's heyday - here was a band that matched anything international that was being played and fit the CanCon criteria that broadcasters are held to. I know many Canadians who love the Hip but really only care about three or four big songs and generally those songs were released between UTH --> PP. I think this identity as the best of Canada did not help them in the US when you look at similar acts like BNL who did have some significant success they were Canadian but they were not introduced, announced and celebrated as Canada's Band.